VexMan » 02 Oct 2016, 15:50 wrote:Well, the length of curve can be measured by measuring wheel, that is a legitimate option - however such measuring wheel should be made and calibrated considering that while in motion, a point on the boundary of such measuring wheel travels 8 times its radius while in spin for 1 full rotation. That would be actual lenght covered by that particular point (and a men walking it afterwards).As well, that would be cca 21% (21.46018% more precisely) MORE distance as opposed to the 2*R*Pi calculation. And this is a fundamental part of understanding circular functions in kinematic situations. Using the measuring wheel as the one in the Flabbergasted's picture would "measure" it wrongly, to be precise, it would measure alleged 100% of the supposed lenght, while actually it would be 121,46% of real length. (I needed quite a long time observing the animation of what I just said, to actually comprehend its implication, I'd suggest the same to all having difficulties with it).

I agree that a point on the boundary of such measuring wheel travels 8 times its radius while in spin for 1 full rotation. But I don't agree with your conclusions. The man walking with the wheel doesn't follow the same path as the point you are talking about. He is just moving horizontally, while the point is also going up and down. Actually here the movement of the point is not even relevant because what is being recorded is the amount of revolutions.

Contrary to what both Flabbergasted and Vexman are saying, what Miles Mathis is saying is that surveyor's wheels work fine for measuring straight lines. But he insists that they are not useful to measure running tracks.

No doubt many will answer me, “The surveyor's wheel doesn't fail, since what a surveyor is interested in is a simple length, not some mystical kinematic distance like you are inventing here.” But that is false as well. Let us say a surveyor is measuring a running track for the Olympics. Well, he has to measure both the straight legs of the track and the curves. And what he wants to know is how far the runners have run, right? Well, running is kinematic. It is like a little orbit. It requires real bodies to move through the curves. It is not just curves sitting on the ground, it is curves being run in real time. Therefore, to calculate the correct distances through the curves, the surveyor must integrate all the motions involved. Treating the curves as equivalent to the straights will fail to do that. And yes, I am telling you the inside lane of the standard track is longer than 400 meters. Or, the runners are running considerably farther than 400 meters. This should be easy to prove by timing groups of top athletes through straights and curves. I predict it will be found that the athletes appear to move through the curves much slower than can be accounted for by stress on the inside leg, etc. But if you use pi=4 to measure the length of the curve, this discrepancy will vanish.

Sprinting on a curve is significantly slower than on a straightaway.....If a 200 m race were performed on both our track curves, the track with 21m curve would be 0.12s faster than the track with the 15m curve.

VexMan » 02 Oct 2016, 15:50 wrote:Well, the length of curve can be measured by measuring wheel, that is a legitimate option - however such measuring wheel should be made and calibrated considering that while in motion, a point on the boundary of such measuring wheel travels 8 times its radius while in spin for 1 full rotation. That would be actual lenght covered by that particular point (and a men walking it afterwards).As well, that would be cca 21% (21.46018% more precisely) MORE distance as opposed to the 2*R*Pi calculation. And this is a fundamental part of understanding circular functions in kinematic situations. Using the measuring wheel as the one in the Flabbergasted's picture would "measure" it wrongly, to be precise, it would measure alleged 100% of the supposed lenght, while actually it would be 121,46% of real length. (I needed quite a long time observing the animation of what I just said, to actually comprehend its implication, I'd suggest the same to all having difficulties with it).

I agree that a point on the boundary of such measuring wheel travels 8 times its radius while in spin for 1 full rotation. But I don't agree with your conclusions. The man walking with the wheel doesn't follow the same path as the point you are talking about. He is just moving horizontally, while the point is also going up and down. Actually here the movement of the point is not even relevant because what is being recorded is the amount of revolutions.

How would that be possible? That is exactly what is being discussed about - to determine the actual distance walked/ran while on the track... He is indeed moving just horizontally, but not inside the curve (if you'd draw his movement on the X-Y chart). It is not about the cycloid path that should be repeated in its mechanics, it's about the length of the cycloid path that is all about. It's really difficult at this point to bring something new into discussion that would say something more relevant to it, I feel like going in circles explaining what I observe and how I make conclusions about it.

If you use a measuring wheel in motion to measure anything with it, I claim that it does its measurements wrongly. Even when you'd measure a straight path deploying such instrument which uses its 2*R*Pi principle to do measurement, we're in movement, we need to focus just on the distance of the path that a point on the wheel travels and it travels 8R of distance in 1 full cycle. What circumference of a circle implies, must be ignored in such kinematic situations. I don't think I can be much clearer what I claim and believe, so I guess we really need to agree that we disagree. But that's ok, as long as we're discussing progress....

I am OK to disagree but we should at least agree what claims Miles Mathis is making, who still is the subject of this topic. And what claims he is not making. Are you saying he is claiming that surveyor's wheels are calculating wrong distances on straight paths? Can you show me where?

To be clear: what I wrote earlier about rulers contracting when you bend them.. is to my knowledge not what M.M. is claiming. But if it turns out to be correct credit goes to him.

I haven't read all posts thoroughly and sorry to interrupt your serious business here, but... Does pi=4 in kinematics mean that the object in a circle with a specific radius, would travel 8r(radius) to get back to the beginning point? If that is true, logically that would mean that the same object would travel the square, where one length is 2r, to the beginning point in same time(comparing that with the circle). Friction not involved.I can draw an example, if it wasn't understandable.

This is just non workable mechanics you're suggesting with a point traveling on squared path. It is though true that it travels 4 x 2R in both cases, one being physically impossible to execute / follow in reality. Another thing that is an important difference in cycloid vs square path the point travels : in square path's case the point needs to go 360deg to complete the distance, while in cycloid path point travels 180deg . So it is impossible to compare the two mechanically even though the result is the same value.

I was trying to understand even further the implication of cycloid in movement of an object. And while trying to reason my claims, it turned out that I should take a look at the definition of the meter in order to get to the essence. It shows that we as humans adopted the meter as standard in late 18th century firstly by French republic and later by others internationally, and it was then defined as a one ten millionth of an arc connecting north Pole and equator. (details here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_metre#M.C3.A8tre_des_Archives ) . Just note that consequently, the meter as standard exists as portion of the Earth's circumference and it is based on straightening the curve to become the line. Also note that the first measurement of just a portion of this arc was done with then French units "lignes" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligne , still in use today in watchmaking business).

However, what is really interesting is that the Englishman John Wilkins some 100-150 years earlier had an alternate idea how to achieve an universal measure. I quote :

Wilkins' idea was to choose the length of a "seconds pendulum" (a pendulum with a half-period of one second) as the unit of length: such pendulums had recently been demonstrated by Christiaan Huygens, and their length is quite close to one modern meter (as well as to some other length units which were then in use, such as the yard). However, it was soon discovered that the length of a seconds pendulum varies from place to place: French astronomer Jean Richer had measured the 0.3% difference in length between Cayenne (in French Guiana) and Paris.[6]

In 1673 Huygens published Horologium Oscillatorium sive de motu pendulorum, his major work on pendulums and horology. It had been observed by Mersenne and others that pendulums are not quite isochronous: their period depends on their width of swing, with wide swings taking slightly longer than narrow swings.[99][100]Huygens analyzed this problem by finding the curve down which a mass will slide under the influence of gravity in the same amount of time, regardless of its starting point; the so-called tautochrone problem. By geometrical methods which were an early use of calculus, he showed it to be a cycloid, rather than the circular arc of a pendulum's bob, and therefore that pendulums are not isochronous.

So, historically we were choosing among 2 different methods to acquire an universal measurement, yet they are both involving circular paths and curves in definitions to establish their fundamental units. In the prevailing standardization we chose a part of the length of Earth's circumference to be the meter.

Here it would be very brave to make a statement, that it is all connected. I somehow feel like I might be on to something more relevant than I can comprehend at this moment.

Anyway, I turned to Mathis , sending him an email on surveryor's wheel and the measurement of straight path with it....hopefully, he'll answer me and allow it to be published here.

I did send him, as you suggested daddie_o. In the meantime, I found another link discussing meter standard, it is another gem discovered. I quote just for the taste :

As we have remarked several times, officially it seems that the meter was invented `out of nothing', apparently only stemming from the slogan ``ten million meters from the pole to the equator'' [41]. A pendulum had been considered as a possible candidate as unit of length, but it had been rejected to avoid a unit of length depending on a unit of time. However, in listing the necessary operations in order to realize the reform of measures, a unitary pendulum is taken into account, as a kind of secondary standard to reproduce the meter:The operations that are necessary to carry out this work are the following: ...

4th To make some observations in latitude forty-fifth degree to verify the number of oscillations that a simple pendulum, which corresponds to the ten millionth part of the arc of a meridian, would accomplish within a day, in the vacuum, at sea level, at freezing point, so that, after having learned that number, this measure could be found again through the observations of the pendulum. In this way the advantages of the system that we have chosen are joined to the advantages that would be obtained by taking the length of the pendulum as a unit. It is possible to accomplish these observations before learning this ten millionth part. Actually, if the number of the oscillations of a pendulum having a determined length are known, it will be sufficient to learn the relation between this length and the ten millionth part to infer undoubtedly the investigated number.35 (Ref. [2], p. 9)

Not meant to be a misdirection of any kind, I'd just like to point to a simple logic : when in motion, time and distance are involved. If initial meter as modern standard was adopted by measurement of movement over the meridian , it incorporates 2 points discussed here regarding "Pi=4" : a) Earth has a curved shape, it has a circumference and b) we're moving while walking(and measuring) , thus time/distance is involved in such movement/measurement.

* For those who read Mathis' science opus, he was already correcting Laplace's and Lagrange's equations in his physics book. I wouldn't be totally surprised if there is yet again something fundamentally inaccurate with observations made by those same guys....

I would like to offer here a definition of time that is as little abstract as possible. What we want, I think, is a definition that describes time as something that we measure. Only that. One might call it an operational definition. This definition is not an explanation of what time means (or has come to mean) philosophically or epistemologically. It is an explanation of what time is in our experimental or everyday use of it.

I maintain that time is simply a measurement of movement. This is its most direct definition. Whenever we measure time, we measure movement. We cannot measure time without measuring movement. The concept of time is dependent upon the concept of movement. Without movement, there is no time. Every clock measures movement: the vibration of a cesium atom, the swing of pendulum, the movement of a second hand.

In this way time can be thought of as a distance measurement. When we measure distance, we measure movement. We measure the change in position. When we measure time, we measure the same thing, but give it another name. Why would we do this? Why give two names and two concepts to the same thing? Distance and Time. I say, in order to compare one to the other. Time is just a second, comparative, measurement of distance.

The measurement of time is necessary to the measurement of velocity. It may be that time was not even "invented," in the modern sense, until someone first thought of the idea of velocity. Velocity is the measurement of the change in position of one thing (the object in question) relative to the change in position of another thing (the cesium atom, or the pendulum, etc.). Once you have conceived of the idea of velocity in this way, you realize that it can be measured in only one way: Compare the unknown movement to a known movement. That is, find something in your world that moves as uniformly as possible, and let that be your clock. Then compare your unknown movement to the movement of your clock. That is what velocity is. ....

daddie_o wrote:Anyway, I really wouldn't get too bogged down in the this Pi=4 paper. It's really irrelevant to about 99% of his work.

To me it is very relevant.

I do understand why it's relevant. I just get a bit frustrated because there seems to be this obsessive focus on this one tiny aspect of his work. Here is a guy who has offered elegant and compelling solutions to the mysteries of dark matter, superconductivity, wave-particle duality, quantum entanglement, the double-slit experiment, the Proton Radius Puzzle, the Pioneer anomaly and the Casimir effect, as well as explaining beta decay, neutrinos, nuclear magnetic resonance, Brownian motion, ice ages, the tides, the Meissner effect, major solar anomalies, celestial mechanics, etc. His theory explains why G (the gravitational constant) has the value it does (along with Planck's constant, the fine structure constant and a bunch of others), what causes gravity, why photons travel at c, why light is quantized, why E=mc2, why the mass of the electron is about 1820 times less than the mass of a proton, where magnetism comes from and how it works mechanically, and on and on. He argues that the Copenhagen interpretation was wrong and that the theories that emerged from it (Quantum mechanics, QED, QCD) are on the wrong track. In so doing, he has also done away with the theories underlying quantum mechanics, electrodynamics & chromodynamics (and hence the bulk of 20th century theoretical physics) in one fell swoop, without dismissing most of their experimental results.

And yet everybody seems to get sidetracked into talking about whether Pi=4 in kinematic situations is true or not. His theories can explain the mystery of LENR (low energy nuclear reactions), aka (so-called) cold fusion. As in, free energy. You can't get much more revolutionary than that! In fact I wrote a paper about it, which also serves as a useful introduction to parts of this theory. Here is a link if anyone is interested in learning and talking about more than his work on Pi, which you'll see plays absolutely no role in the vast majority of his work: https://goo.gl/FXX5JJ

Bear in mind that some of it won't make much sense if you're not familiar with the field of LENR/cold fusion.

I agree, he's done monumental work as a whole, it's not that as if anybody refutes it. I hope you can still connect your ratio with the implications of what Mathis discovered and then relate this to a common men's ability to comprehend it all (including me). Debating on Pi is certainly more in the grasp of everybody than debating on i.e. Casimir effect, let alone LENR. In other words, all he says is relevant. As a whole and in little details, nothing can escape scrutiny of all of us, willing and wanting to grasp what he obviously did. I see it as a goodwill, so patience with points that are perhaps of less passion to you personally is very welcomed. Do not forget, Mathisian physics is not simple, by confirming even the smallest part of it (as in your eyes may be the case of Pi=4 in kinematic situations), this certainly cuts into the doubt about Mathis and certainly makes more room for truth about the true nature of real order around us.

VexMan » October 4th, 2016, 8:24 am wrote:As a whole and in little details, nothing can escape scrutiny of all of us, willing and wanting to grasp what he obviously did. I see it as a goodwill, so patience with points that are perhaps of less passion to you personally is very welcomed. Do not forget, Mathisian physics is not simple, by confirming even the smallest part of it (as in your eyes may be the case of Pi=4 in kinematic situations), this certainly cuts into the doubt about Mathis and certainly makes more room for truth about the true nature of real order around us.

Good points, Vexman. Yes the attempt to come to grips with this Pi=4 business is definitely a sign of goodwill. On any other forum, the shills will always pounce on this to discredit his work without trying to understand it. So they try to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Or jettison the life preservers with the ballast. But it's important to keep in mind that the rest of his work would still stand even if he was wrong on this one issue. (Though for some things we would need to make use of the cycloid math where the circumference/orbit = 8r rather than 2Pi*r.)

I actually do think his physics is pretty simple and straightforward, at least compared to mainstream physics. Maybe it is that he is able to convey it in such a clear, logical and perspicacious manner.

daddie_o » 03 Oct 2016, 21:34 wrote:I do understand why it's relevant. I just get a bit frustrated because there seems to be this obsessive focus on this one tiny aspect of his work. Here is a guy who has offered elegant and compelling solutions to the mysteries of dark matter, superconductivity, wave-particle duality, quantum entanglement, the double-slit experiment, the Proton Radius Puzzle, the Pioneer anomaly and the Casimir effect, as well as explaining beta decay, neutrinos, nuclear magnetic resonance, Brownian motion, ice ages, the tides, the Meissner effect, major solar anomalies, celestial mechanics, etc. His theory explains why G (the gravitational constant) has the value it does (along with Planck's constant, the fine structure constant and a bunch of others), what causes gravity, why photons travel at c, why light is quantized, why E=mc2, why the mass of the electron is about 1820 times less than the mass of a proton, where magnetism comes from and how it works mechanically, and on and on. He argues that the Copenhagen interpretation was wrong and that the theories that emerged from it (Quantum mechanics, QED, QCD) are on the wrong track. In so doing, he has also done away with the theories underlying quantum mechanics, electrodynamics & chromodynamics (and hence the bulk of 20th century theoretical physics) in one fell swoop, without dismissing most of their experimental results.

And yet everybody seems to get sidetracked into talking about whether Pi=4 in kinematic situations is true or not. His theories can explain the mystery of LENR (low energy nuclear reactions), aka (so-called) cold fusion. As in, free energy. You can't get much more revolutionary than that! In fact I wrote a paper about it, which also serves as a useful introduction to parts of this theory. Here is a link if anyone is interested in learning and talking about more than his work on Pi, which you'll see plays absolutely no role in the vast majority of his work: https://goo.gl/FXX5JJ

Bear in mind that some of it won't make much sense if you're not familiar with the field of LENR/cold fusion.

Speaking only for myself, I will explain my "obsessive focus on this one tiny aspect of his work" (pi=4)

Because at this time it seems to be the only aspect that you could actually verify in the real world. M.M. doesn't seem to make many predictions that I can verify personally. As I underlined in the quote above he uses results of mainstream scientists, and he does a great job explaining them after the fact. But even there I haven't seen any precise predictions that have come true.